Amanda Mailing List Troubles
On March 12, I moved the home of the mailing lists (behind the scenes) and messed up one of the steps, so mail in past few days to the amanda lists ended up being silently blackholed. I've corrected this and adjusted my procedures so it won't happen again and it this or other problems would be caught sooner. if you were waiting for a message to show up and it didn't, please resend. My apologies for the inconvenience. -Todd
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM AN AMANDA MAILING LIST
I apologize for the wasted bandwidth, but it seems the obvious must be restated. YOU CANNOT UNSUBSCRIBE FROM A LIST BY SENDING MAIL TO THAT LIST. >From the AMANDA website: >Amanda is completely unsupported and made available as-is. Unfortunately, we don't usually have the time to answer all >user questions and help all new sites get started. However, we do maintain several mailing lists for those interested in Amanda. > >Please note: > >To subscribe or unsubscribe to a mailing list, DO NOT, EVER, send mail to that list. Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with the following line in the body of the message: >subscribe >and when you want to unsubscribe, use the following line in the body: >unsubscribe >where is one of the following: > >amanda-announce > >amanda-users > >amanda-hackers Richard Sean Jaehne
Re: amanda mailing list
Ryan Williams wrote: > > > Perhaps it would help the two of you. Perhaps you can explain why > > the rest of us should be inconvenienced because you can't spare the > > time to learn to use the right tool for the right job? 200 m/day might > > be a burden for you. For many of us that's a light day. The list > > messages are already tagged in the Sender: header. Please learn to > > use it. > > Who is to say that we would be the ones inconveniencing others. If everyone > but you wants this, you would be inconveniencing us to ask that it was not > done. I was just placing out an idea when I suggested this just to get some > feed back and to see what other people thought about this. We all know your > opinion about the matter now how about we hear some other peoples opinions. I agree with Mitch. I like concise, pertinent subject lines so that I can determine if it is a subject matter that I am interested in or can help with. Mike Ellebracht www.linuxgruven.com To be is to do I. Kant To do is to be A. Sartre Yabba-Dabba-Do F. Flinstone
Re: amanda mailing list
>I'm new to this mailing list (as of yesterday) ... Welcome! If I may make a short comment. This discussion about E-mail and Subject lines is not at all typical of this mailing list. I've already seen more heat about this than the last 1000 other postings. So please don't judge it just based on this. >but I already agree >with what Ryan wrote. There is NO inconvience is having an >[AMU] appended to the front/end of a message subject ... I disagree (and agree with Mitch). That crap is a major nuisance. When I first saw it on a mailing list, I thought it was kind of nice. Then I tried to sort my mail into threads. Then I didn't think it was so nice :-). Here's a typical Subject line in a thread on a group that does this: Subject: RE: [cvsgui] Re: Can CVS-NT repository be moved? Ick. Now, some will say this is a problem of that persons mailer, and that's true (although I've seen it a lot so it must be a reasonably common one, whatever it is). But my response is that if that crud were not in the Subject line, this wouldn't have happened at all. And Mitch is also right that losing several more characters off the Subject summary can be annoying. >and frankly being >on a couple dozen different mailing lists and recieving on the order of >200 emails a day, things like what was suggested only helps in the long >run. Why? As Mitch said, procmail does that perfectly fine filtering on TO (which include To: and Cc: and all the other normal target address components). And to you folks using Outlook, well, 'nuff said :-). This is the **least** of *your* worries. >Mitch - Can you explain in 100 words or less specifically how to filter >the email to do something like this on a RH system? ... I'll give it a shot. Install/configure procmail (no root needed). Use this rule: :0 * ^TOamanda-users $MAILDIR/amanda/. 9 words (not counting the rule). >~~joe For those that are on mailing lists with this "feature", here's a typical procmail rule I use for undo-ing it, if you're interested: :0 hw * ^TOsolaris-x86 Subject= | formail -x Subject | sed 's/\[s-x86\] *//' :0 fhw * ^TOsolaris-x86 | formail -i "Subject:$Subject" This doesn't quite handle the above because it ends up with "RE: Re: ...", but I just haven't had the minute to tack on another sed expression. John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: amanda mailing list
At 12:00 PM 2/9/01 -0500, Ryan Williams wrote: > > Perhaps it would help the two of you. Perhaps you can explain why > > the rest of us should be inconvenienced because you can't spare the > > time to learn to use the right tool for the right job? 200 m/day might > > be a burden for you. For many of us that's a light day. The list > > messages are already tagged in the Sender: header. Please learn to > > use it. > >Who is to say that we would be the ones inconveniencing others. If everyone >but you wants this, you would be inconveniencing us to ask that it was not >done. I was just placing out an idea when I suggested this just to get some >feed back and to see what other people thought about this. We all know your >opinion about the matter now how about we hear some other peoples opinions. Given the variety of machines/platforms/mail user agents I find myself working from, a subject prefix would be useful. I use filters on my main workstation, but cannot have them setup everywhere. Mail list subject prefixes were wonderful when AOL was my main email provider. That may apply to a number of folks on this list. Now if we could just get Congress to require a [SPAM] prefix... Andrew Robinson * Andrew W. Robinson | Voice: +1 (504)-889-2784 * * Computerized Processes Unlimited, Inc. | FAX:+1 (504)-889-2799 * * 4200 S. I-10 Service Rd., Suite 205| E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Metairie, LA 70001 | WWW: http://www.cpu.com * * "Consulting System Integrators" *
RE: amanda mailing list
> I can see where it would help if you didn't have some way to filter mail, but > mostly the Sender: header is correct. I'm running Outlook (don't go there) to read E-mail and have been completely unable to get the filtering to work. Something in the subject is easy for Outlook but it barfs on the sender filter. Lew
Re: amanda mailing list
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001, Ryan Williams wrote: > > Perhaps it would help the two of you. Perhaps you can explain why > > the rest of us should be inconvenienced because you can't spare the > > time to learn to use the right tool for the right job? 200 m/day might > > be a burden for you. For many of us that's a light day. The list > > messages are already tagged in the Sender: header. Please learn to > > use it. > > Who is to say that we would be the ones inconveniencing others. If everyone > but you wants this, you would be inconveniencing us to ask that it was not > done. I was just placing out an idea when I suggested this just to get some > feed back and to see what other people thought about this. We all know your > opinion about the matter now how about we hear some other peoples opinions. I can see where it would help if you didn't have some way to filter mail, but mostly the Sender: header is correct. The only times I have trouble with that is when an email is sent directly to me, and not the list. Also, just to note, I would like (hope, pray, etc.) that Subjects become more descriptive of what's in the message. Wading through 100's of "Question:" or "ARGH! HELP ME" messages for something useful is difficult to say the least. -- Jason Hollinden SMG Systems Admin
Re: amanda mailing list
> Perhaps it would help the two of you. Perhaps you can explain why > the rest of us should be inconvenienced because you can't spare the > time to learn to use the right tool for the right job? 200 m/day might > be a burden for you. For many of us that's a light day. The list > messages are already tagged in the Sender: header. Please learn to > use it. Who is to say that we would be the ones inconveniencing others. If everyone but you wants this, you would be inconveniencing us to ask that it was not done. I was just placing out an idea when I suggested this just to get some feed back and to see what other people thought about this. We all know your opinion about the matter now how about we hear some other peoples opinions.
Re: amanda mailing list
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Joseph Del Corso wrote: > There is NO inconvience is having an > [AMU] appended to the front/end of a message subject; This is an opinion stated as a fact. My opinion is different. Those 6 chars at the beginning force 6 chars of actual information out of the right end of the subject field of the message list, leaving less readable information available to use when deciding whether or not to read each message. > and frankly being > on a couple dozen different mailing lists and recieving on the order of > 200 emails a day, things like what was suggested only helps in the long > run. Perhaps it would help the two of you. Perhaps you can explain why the rest of us should be inconvenienced because you can't spare the time to learn to use the right tool for the right job? 200 m/day might be a burden for you. For many of us that's a light day. The list messages are already tagged in the Sender: header. Please learn to use it. > Mitch - Can you explain in 100 words or less specifically how to filter > the email to do something like this on a RH system? or how one can do > this if they don't have root access? Specific program filters and > howto's would be nice. This list is for discussion of amanda issues, so while the meta-discussion above is treading the line of being off-topic, e-mail tutoring is IMO over the line. You didn't say what MUA you use, so I can't guess which solution you should start with but to get you started I did a google search for "mail filter". One of the interesting pages it turned up is: http://www.cs.su.oz.au/~revelant/if/filter_howto.html This contains pointers to lots of useful resources. -Mitch
Re: amanda mailing list
I'm new to this mailing list (as of yesterday) but I already agree with what Ryan wrote. There is NO inconvience is having an [AMU] appended to the front/end of a message subject; and frankly being on a couple dozen different mailing lists and recieving on the order of 200 emails a day, things like what was suggested only helps in the long run. Mitch - Can you explain in 100 words or less specifically how to filter the email to do something like this on a RH system? or how one can do this if they don't have root access? Specific program filters and howto's would be nice. ~~joe On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Mitch Collinsworth wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Ryan Williams wrote: > > > Just a little pet peeve I would like to ask about. > > And this request happens to be a pet peeve of mine. > > > > Would it be possable to put an [amanda-users] in the subject of everything > > sent to the mailing list? I know that mailman is capable of this but I am > > not shure of the capabilitys of majordomo. > > The list identification is already in the Sender: header. If you > need to filter your mail, please use a mail filter. There are > plenty of them out there, procmail is one popular choice. > > Cluttering the subject header with redundent information already > present in another header only forces useful subject header data > over leaving less of where it can be seen in everyone's inbox > lists. Please use the right tool for the right job rather than > inconveniencing the rest of us for your convenience. > > -Mitch > >
Re: amanda mailing list
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 09:17:35PM -0500, Ryan Williams wrote: > Just a little pet peeve I would like to ask about. > > Would it be possable to put an [amanda-users] in the subject of everything > sent to the mailing list? I know that mailman is capable of this but I am > not shure of the capabilitys of majordomo. > > Regards, > > Ryan Williams > > Majordomo does it quite nicely. In amanda-users.config, add a line that says subject_prefix = [amanda-users] Tho I myself would prefer to see a more terse prefix ... maybe [AMU]. Many mailers display only the first xx characters of the subject line on the index screen. -- - Dan Wilder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Technical Manager & Correspondent SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549 Phone: 206-782-7733 x123 Seattle, WA 98155-0549 URLhttp://www.linuxjournal.com/ -
Re: amanda mailing list
The alternative is to do what my local LUG does would be to add: * X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/4749 (naturally amand-users wouldn't claim to be linuxsa :-P) And filter on that...every now and then someone will send you something directly and it will end up in the wrong box if you only filter on sender. However, if that header is kept your filtering doesn't break regardless of where the mail is sent from. DL
Re: amanda mailing list
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Ryan Williams wrote: > Just a little pet peeve I would like to ask about. And this request happens to be a pet peeve of mine. > Would it be possable to put an [amanda-users] in the subject of everything > sent to the mailing list? I know that mailman is capable of this but I am > not shure of the capabilitys of majordomo. The list identification is already in the Sender: header. If you need to filter your mail, please use a mail filter. There are plenty of them out there, procmail is one popular choice. Cluttering the subject header with redundent information already present in another header only forces useful subject header data over leaving less of where it can be seen in everyone's inbox lists. Please use the right tool for the right job rather than inconveniencing the rest of us for your convenience. -Mitch
amanda mailing list
Just a little pet peeve I would like to ask about. Would it be possable to put an [amanda-users] in the subject of everything sent to the mailing list? I know that mailman is capable of this but I am not shure of the capabilitys of majordomo. Regards, Ryan Williams
